CAUCUS has rejected the much-talked about Draft Minerals Resources Bill, claiming its contents have been substantially altered from what was agreed during earlier consultations on the Draft.
Resource owners will be worse off in its present form as their fate will be left in the hands of the Minister of Mines, Energy and Rural Electrification. The Minister will determine the rate of payment in terms of royalty.
According to one source familiar with the process, the Minister of Mines put the Draft Mineral Resources Bill 2024 to Caucus two weeks ago, but it was “deferred due to the bills’ lack of cohesiveness in addressing our resource owners’ benefits.”
“It was a wise decision by Caucus to defer it,” the source said.
“My opinion and feedback on the Mineral Resources Bill 2024 are as follows:
“Part 11 of section 116 omitted the royalty rates and gave the power to determine the rates to the Minister. Clause 5 of section 116 gave powers to determine the royalty rates to the Minister of Mines.
At the conclusion of debate of the Draft Bill at the Iron Bottom Sound Hotel earlier this year, a total increase of 45 per cent to the existing rate was agreed. It sets out the distribution of the proposed increase as:
1. Landowners – 20 per cent Land Owners; [1.2 per cent]
2. 15 per cent – Solomon Islands Government [1.5 per cent; and
3. 10 per cent – Provincial Governments [0.3 per cent]
At the present time the total payout to landowners, national government and the provincial government is just three (3) per cent. Its distribution is as follows:
Landowners – 1.2 per cent;
National government – 1.5 per cent; and
Provincial Government – 0.3 per cent
The proposed increase has now been removed from the new Bill, leaving Provincial Governments in particular in the cold. It presently receives just 0.3 per cent.
“This Bill is a total giveaway of all our minerals to foreigners. It clearly shows a conflict of interest and has the potential for corruption. It must not be endorsed by Caucus and Cabinet and must not be tabled in Parliament in its present form,” the source said.
- By Alfred Sasako
